Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
, we saw that harry reid and mitch mcconnell struck, is based in part, it expedites some nominations if they come from rogue individual senators or a handful, but it's based in part on a kind of gentleman's agreement that you're not going to misuse the filibuster in nominations in the same way. and if you see a filibuster of hagel in this case where there is a clear majority and more for his confirmation, and you know, think about this, we've got a sequester coming up, which could cause enormous potential damage to national security, you're going to keep the defense secretary from being in place to help to administer that. we've got a war going on. i think you'd have to, if you were in harry reid's shoes, begin to rethink what you're going to do with the rules. >> as an institutional scholar such as yourself, hearing that come from you carries a lot of weight. norm ornstein, resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, co-author of "it's even worse than it looks." thank you for being with us tonight. it's great to have your perspective. >> thank you so much. >> all right. w
did because harry reid spent $2 million attacking him as a conservative during the republican primary. he said he never voted for a tax increase and always pro-life and supported a balanced budget amendment, and the object was help nominate the weakest republican candidate possible, so they'd have a chance -- >> but you set yourself up as a politbureau and the theory on republicanism is to lit the local state -- >> rand paul had a right and everybody has a chance in markets and let people go in and participate, the opposite of politbureau and the more who participate the better off we are and the more we examine the quality of the candidates the more likely we have fewer christine o'donnell's and more ra rand paul joos what do you think of the republican party's decision, temporarily, to block the nomination of the defense secretary for the first time in our history. >> why wouldn't they? in the end he's probably going to be confirmed, but in the meantime this is an opportunity -- the president thought in nominating chuck hagel he'd put him out there and rub republicans' noses in it a
of trying to protemenen, harry reid needs to remove the gavel. when the new york times is raising questions about his fitness to serve in light of, you know the allegations out there. what does at that tell you? that tells me that there's a problem. >> it tells me there's a problem with the newspapers. i don't know whether or not the new york times, and members of the senate unless there's something in the constitution i overlooked. >> sean: let me ask you a question about you. here you are, the head of the powerful house ways and means committee. you guys are in charge of writing tax law. and then all of these ethics issues comes out on you, and taxes. seriously, why did you allow that to happen knowing you spent all these years in congress and that that was going to hurt your reputation, why didn't you just pay the bill? >> actually, that case is not really over. and according to my counsel, jay goldberg, i don't think it would be proper for me he to discuss it further on your show, but i tell you one thing, when it is over, you'll be the first one to get the answers. >> sean: that's a pr
eternal. the president can sit down with harry reid tonight and work with senate democrats who have the majority in the senate to move a bill. it's time for them to act. i've made this clear for months now. and yet we've seen nothing. >> now, he wants them, senator, to move legislation that passed in the last congress. the last congress is irrelevant right now. you need new legislation in order to pass a bill. >> wolf, what's not irrelevant is last congress we had the tax increase. so now it's spending cut time. the president doesn't want to to the spending cut. we had the tax increase -- >> right now, to avert this fiscal crisis we have right now, these forced spending cuts, you need a new bill. you can't use a bill from the old congress. >> the president -- you know what, and i think scott walker, the wisconsin governor, said it, let the president come out and say, here's where we're going to cut $85 billion in spending. the bottom line is the president doesn't want to cut spending. it's $16 trillion in debt. he doesn't want to cut spending. >> he does want to cut spending but he
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)